17 December 2007 6:16 PM

How to read an opinion poll

Read Peter Hitchens only in The Mail on Sunday

If I were a billionaire, I'd set up a polling organisation and keep my involvement secret. I'd then offer frequent polls at bargain rates to newspapers and broadcasters. And they would be very different to the ones that are being published at the moment, as we shall see in a minute.

Polls are now the best way to influence public opinion, largely because they're treated (much like the BBC) as impartial oracles of the truth by most people who read them. As readers of the excellent political thrillers of Michael Dobbs (serialised on TV with the incomparable and much-missed Ian Richardson playing the ultra-cynical politician Francis Urqhart) will know, it’s not quite that simple. Dobbs has one of his characters say (roughly) "The thing you must realise about polls is that they are not devices for measuring public opinion - they are devices for influencing it". And, as a former heavyweight in what used to be Tory Central Office (he was Norman Tebbit's chief of staff when Lord Tebbit was party chairman), Mr Dobbs should know how these things are done. My guess is that political professionals use polls to float ideas, and massage them to try to create swings in opinion from nothing, or amplify small swings into bigger ones, taking advantage of humanity’s regrettable herd instinct and desire to be on the winning side. But what do I know?

There are many other ways in which polls can tweak opinion. The most significant is their power to decide what the question should be, and how it should be asked, and at what point in the questionnaire a particular issue should be raised. The same tricks are useful in a referendum, and in a way a poll is a sort of rolling referendum, which could be used - if someone so choose - to stampede or at least herd British public opinion in directions desired by the elite. I reckon a skilled pollster could devise a survey which could lead respondents into saying in large numbers that the Tory Party was played out, and needed to be replaced. But this is not an answer that's currently much in demand, given the tedious sheep-like uniformity of political journalism, so the required questions are not being asked.

Then there's the question of how you slice the results. This is the most significantly interesting thing about the polls at the moment, supposedly showing a rampant Tory Party chasing Gordon Brown out of office. This is the story a lot of papers want, some to keep the flagging, desperately dull soap opera of Westminster alive (because vast numbers of political reporters make their living out of it), others because they seek a swift transition from Blair One (Anthony Blair) to Blair Two (David Cameron) which of course means the equally rapid erasure of Gordon Brown, the Unsmooth, Unspinnable UnBlair.

As it happens I am an admirer of YouGov and I know and like Peter Kellner, one of its moving spirits. I think they are an excellent polling organisation. And I have only chosen their Sunday Times poll for my examination below because it is the most recent to hand as I write this. I could have said exactly the same thing about all the others. What you must understand is that the pollsters obtain the data (usually consulting with their clients on the questions) and then pass it on to the client. They're not responsible for how the results are displayed.

But even so I would plead that it really is time that pollsters (in their raw charts) and newspapers (in their accounts) gave much more prominence to the enormous group of people who for various reasons will not support the main three parties. One way of doing this would be to lump them together into one, which would immediately show how important they were, and how different public opinion is now from the way it was 25 years ago.

Take last Sunday's poll. The Sunday Times displayed on its front page a simple, stark bar chart - a blue streak showing the Tories at 45%, a chunky red rectangle showing Labour at 32% and a much smaller yellow rectangle showing the Liberal Democrats at 14%. The story also highlighted a 20% Labour lead among women voters. All these figures are correct and true. But there is quite a lot they leave out.

A much fuller version inside (on page 12, a left-hand page - seen in the trade as much less prominent than a right-hand page, which usually catches the eye first) is the first mention of parties beyond the big three, who are shown at 9% (though my version of the YouGov figures gives 10%. No matter. I'm sure it's just one of those things). 'Don't knows' are not mentioned in the page 12 party political charts at all, though they do get a mention in surveys on "How worried are you about a recession?" , "Do you think house prices will go up or down" and "Will you spend more or less on Christmas than you did last year?". In these, the 'Don't Knows' are a minor group, at 5%, 8% or - on house prices - 10%. As soon as direct party politics enters in, the numbers of the uncommitted shoot up. A fairly chunky 13% answered 'not sure', to a question about whether Gordon Brown is more or less competent than Anthony Blair.

Funny, then, that this set of charts never mentions the number of people who said "Don't know" in response to the "How would you vote?" question.

Because this was a thumping 16%. And they were joined by another 7% who said they would not vote, essentially the same thing. That's 23% of the entire sample, nearly a quarter. And I'm not done yet, because the "Headline voting intention" figures used in the pretty bar charts exclude the 'Don't Knows' and 'Wouldn't Votes.

Does this matter? Do fish breathe through gills? You'll need a calculator here. And you can go to the "Timesonline" website to get hold of the full YouGov figures, as I did, and see if your sums come out the same as mine.

The survey, conducted on the 13th and 14th December, polled 1481 adults, 709 men, 772 women, spread across all age ranges, social classes and national regions ( excluding Northern Ireland) in what I assume must be a scientifically designed way. I am using the weighted figures, rather than the raw figures, on the same assumption, that the weighting is scientific.

They found 507 planned to vote Tory, 360 planned to vote Labour, and 159 Liberal Democrat. Now remember that colourful front page bar chart -Tories 45%, Labour 32%, LibDem 14%?But....My calculations show that 507 is 34.23% of 1,481They show that 360 is 24.3% of 1,481They show that 159 is 10.73% of 1,481.

Rather different, isn't it, from that bar chart? Both are true. But one tells you a lot more.

The 'Others' (shown in the YouGov workings as 10%, but in the newspaper's page 12 chart as 9%) would then presumably (on the basis that each percentage point in the headline figures represents approximately 11.2 people) add up to 112 British subjects.

That means that out of 1,481 people surveyed, only 1,138 (76.8%) had their voting opinions recorded in the paper - and that was on Page 12. On Page One (the results picked up by broadcasters and other newspapers), the 'Others' were not mentioned, so only 1,026 (69.27%) had their opinions recorded in the eye-catching coloured chart. That means that 455 people were not included in the front-page headline figures. That's 455 out of 1,481- 30.72% of the total surveyed, almost as many as say they plan to vote Tory.

Can it possibly be right to ignore such an enormous multitude of the disenchanted? Remember, pollsters have been recording an alleged Tory surge for ages. But it has mysteriously failed (so far) to manifest itself in real life. There has never been any actual evidence of it in any real poll, from Bromley South and Dunfermline to Ealing Southall. A serious examination of last May's local elections likewise fails to show any significant surge, despite extravagant claims, swallowed by too many in my trade, that such a surge had taken place. So isn't the great army of 'others', 'don't knows' and 'won't votes' exactly the section that a truly curious person might want to highlight, and to question further about what was worrying them? Yet the polls - and the media - just set them to one side and pretend that this is business as usual. As it happens, the fact that such a large part of the sample is discarded could at least partly explain the extraordinary, unprecedented volatility of the polls since last summer. It takes far fewer voters to change their minds to produce a major percentage change. Surely that's important in itself?

There's also been a certain amount of fuss about how this poll shows that 'Worcester Woman', whoever she may be, is switching to David Cameron. As the Sunday Times put it "It appears to be women voters in particular who are deserting Labour. The Tories enjoy a 20-point lead among female voters, compared with six points among men"

Well, again, that's perfectly true. But female 'Don't Knows' also outnumber male 'Don't Knows' by 21% to 11%. Female 'won't votes' outnumber male 'won't votes' by 9% to 4%. That suggests a lot of women aren't actually being seduced by Mr Cameron, or anyone else, the sensible creatures. Also, in the 18 to 34 age range, the Tory lead is only 2% (38 over 36), whereas in the 55+ age range it's 26% (51 over 25), and in the 35 - 54 range it's 43% to 36%. Without the Tory concentration in the over-55s, there wouldn't be much in it, and I wonder how that breaks down between the 55-65s and the 65 and overs. There are also similar class divides (interestingly, the poll surveyed 682 in the lower social classes C2DE, and 797 in the upper ABC1 social classes, which says something about the class make-up of modern Britain. The C2DEs were - unsurprisingly - less Tory than the ABC1s. But they also recorded 20% 'Don't Know' and 9% 'Won't Vote'. Whereas the ABC1s recorded 13% 'Don't Know' and 5% 'Won't Vote'. I think we should consider the possibility that the Labour vote is still soft, but that doesn't necessarily mean that these votes will fall into the hands of the Tories, or remain neutral when an election comes. I'd also like to see some polling on people's intentions for tactical voting, which transformed British elections when it finally happened in 1997.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Peter,Your paper appears to be clamouring
for Jeremy Clarkson to be PM and quite a lot of people seem prepared to sign on. He
would certainly prove a popular politician,methinks you should have a word.

In all seriousness I would like to ask you one question. Do you really think that,given all these new laws passed there is room for another party or anyone with vision? Isn't it all done and dusted? The way I see it at present is that, come the next election we shall have two parties with exactly the same policies, basically a one party state, just different figureheads. Since I just prefer Brown to DC
does this mean I have to vote NL?

I dont usually agree with Peter on much but he's spot here.There is a simply a massive shift going virtually unreported by mainstream media away from the two party political model.

Its time lazy commentators and analysts woke up.At a simple level look at falling turnout and the falling % of voters who vote Tory/Labour (68% in 2005 fallen for last 5 general elections).

The only answer is to reform our absurd and antiquated electoral system and constitution to reflect these changes.

Anyone who thinks the tories will win next time is kidding themselves look at the results from last time and see what a mountain they have to climb they need to poll 45% and labour less than 35% just to get a majority of one.It won't happen.The current disproportionate voting system has a big inbuilt labour bias.

A Scott should know that anyone fighting for real conservatism in the Tory Party will be politely ignored and possibly even banned, like the Monday Club. This notion is as equally fanciful as that of the Tories ever winning another election. But all that the privileged Etonians of the Tory Party care about is office. When Peter Hitchens approached certain senior Tories about the ideas contained in his book 'The Abolition of Liberty', he was also ignored. It sums them up perfectly, and so I myself will ignore them. They feel that they've been missing out on the perks of government for far too long, the poor lambs. Well, long may it continue.

In reply to Wesley Crosland – for a precedent take the example of New Labour. Prior to 1997 a lot of left-wing Labour MPs and voters were moaning (with justification) about how conservative Blair was and that in New Labour’s pursuit of office at any price it had abandoned all Labour’s principles resulting in the party being as “right-wing as the Tories”.

Would anyone argue that with hindsight those people should not have voted Labour in ‘97 (thus giving the country another term of John Major) in order to form a new breakaway party that was explicitly pro-high tax, pro-immigration, pro-abortion etc.?

A Scott. I think you make fair points about why we should put a Tory government in office, but I don't think they are merely running left with the intention of governing right. Despite what anyone says the EU is still there to leave. We are not in the posiiton that South Carolina was in after Lincoln won the 1860 election.

What worries me is when will we get to the position when we can't leave. Doom merchants may say it's close. I still think it's a way off yet but it will come.

The pro Europeans have a very nasty habit of making those of us that want out of the EU seem as if we're some kind of red necks that don't like Johnny Foreigner. (A bit like concerns for immigration being deliberately tangled with racialism).

There are some reasonable arguments for a one world government or for a completely federal one state EU. I think the counter arguments are far stronger. Why don't the EU federalists come out and fight their corner honestly and allow honest debate to take them down. I think Parish, District, County and Westminster are enough tiers of government and I really don't want decisions about me made in a far away lands by politicians who don't even share my language. Politicians are a slippery enough bunch at best, but placed in a remote corner of the continent and unable to even be questioned by an interviewer in the mother tongue of those who they are representative of, is a step too far. (Yes I do understand Quebec cause).

As peoples I think we have a fair amount in common, and freer trade is a great idea but why did it have to become a talking shop for domestic electoral failures to gain power through the back door. Couldn't we just have a TV show for their fragile ego's to be paraded on if they crave importance that much. (Like Portillo has)

On this EU issue alone the Tories are in bed with Labour. Maybe a split in the Tories will keep them out of power for longer but it may allow PH's idea of a new party to form or it may allow a genuine consensus to form out of both major parties to bring in a new party to give us independence before it gets to the point when the major institutions no longer have national identity. IE EU army, EU inland revenue, EU customs & excise, EU police force, EU foreign office, EU interior ministry, EU ministry of esperanto!

There will come a point when it's too late and putting Cameron in now, even though the Tories may be better and less damaging to certain parts of our economy in the mean time, will put us firmly on track for the EUSSR.

(The Union of Great Britian I do support and whilst I was not in favour of the Scottish and Welsh being inflicted with a pointless tier of government, us in England have to acknowledge that as we have the bulk of the population we did not do enough to allow fair representation to both countries at local level. Both nations had Tory rule for 18 years when they hadn't voted for it. Britain did vote for it though. A simple system of allowing only Scottish or Welsh westminster MPs to vote on domestic issues, with bills being put in the correct context for that situation, would have been an adequate soloution. England could've had something similar but with our size shouldn't really of required it. Don't be fooled into the pro EU dream of breaking up the United Kingdom of Great Britain. I'm British. The English part is about as relevant as my County or Town in the big picture).

A Scott says that the 'best thing to do is to fight against Cameron's strand of Toryism' when the Tory Party is in office. Now, at the present time this would require an act of divine intervention, but why ever does he think this would work? Any precedent? A Cameron victory will only serve to entrench the liberal consensus. Why not try to destroy it through Peter Hitchens's novel proposal? It's worth a shot and - if it works - is far preferable to another dreary, dead-end period of Majorism.

The desire to avoid a grinning Gordon Brown on the steps of Downing Street is not just an emotional spasm. The problem with the “don’t vote Tory” strategy is that it will simply ensure another 10-15 years of Labour government, at the end of which there will be much less left for conservatism to conserve.

The history books illustrate the problems when parties or movements split: the Tories in 1846 and 1906 over free trade; the Liberals in 1918 over Lloyd George; Labour and the SDP in 1981 – they all lead to long periods in opposition allowing the other party to govern as they please. Therefore it is vital conservatism does not split now - instead more realpolitik is needed.

For those who oppose David Cameron’s strand of Toryism (and I am one) the best thing to do is to fight against that strand from within the Conservative Party when it is in office. Political office should be achieved at all costs – if this means cosying-up to the BBC so be it – for the simple reason that if the Tories are in office that means Labour are not and are thus are not in a position to do more damage. Once in office policies can be pursued to advance the conservative cause. New Labour are the classic (flip side) example of this – in all three elections they have “run right, governed left”. Why shouldn’t the Tories “run left, govern right” – in the same way George W Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative” in 2000?

Some right-wingers are their own worst enemy though – I have read leaders in the Mail and Telegraph recently supporting the Union with Scotland above the “English votes for English laws” plan the Tories mooted. This is insane – the Union has been dead since devolution and Scottish MPs (nearly all Labour) should have no right to vote on English laws or sustain a Labour government that in the future may have less English MPs than the Tories. Those conservatives who would rather preserve the Union than tackle this anti-democratic scandal remind me of the Tory idiots who twice flocked to defend the Stuart monarchy in the seventeenth century. They hate change – even when change is necessary and in conservatism’s interests.

Foe the umpteenth time, I ask you and hold out in the hope for a one word answer.

Here we go:

Do you, or do you not, accept that on balance, voting for the Tories at the next election is to vote for the least worst option and a Tory government would at least be marginally better and less damaging to the country than a Labour one.

A one word answer, please. (That's 'Yes' or 'No') Hopefully followed up with reasons.

In response to 'Clive' (23rd December, 9.54 a.m.) it is true that those who vote decide elections. My suspicion is that many of those currently declaring that they 'don't know' or 'won't vote' will in fact vote at a general election. The numbers of these abstainers are at unprecedented and almost unbelievable levels, by the standards of past general elections. They are, after all, asked how they would vote in a general election *tomorrow*. Since they know there will be no such event, their answer is pretty non-indicative about their plans for 18 months hence. And it seems quite likely to me that they will not be voting Conservative. If they were going to, they would say so now. Given the rehabilitation of the Tories by the BBC and the political media in general, and the natural unpopularity of the government which has finally caught up with them many years later than it would had most of the media not been the willing heralds of Blairism for so long, the interesting thing is how small the Tory recovery is. Given the turn in fashion against Labour, I expect quite a lot of people are also concealing Labour sympathies from the polls, just as Tories used to do. The polls, at present, point to a hung parliament as the most likely result, though a Labour majority is by no means impossible. Watch carefully for acts of friendship towards the Ulster Unionists, and the nationalist parties in Wales and Scotland, by Gordon Brown. Not to mention subtle overtures to Mr Clegg.

A Scott, you do have a good point. Although I did actually dread the idea of Kinnock winning in 1992 and was quite surprised when the exit poll showed a Tory victory. I was naturally pleased too.

I've always thought that our first past the post system is the best as it seems to express the general feeling of the population into seats. During most of the 18 years the Tories were in power, the charge was always stated that it kept the Tories in, until Blair got a 179 majority.

The orginal thread was about Polls manipulating opinion rather than measuring it. Personally I've considered this a fact. An earlier thread on the Golden Compass (when posting seemed impossible) took this idea in a far broader idea about the subtle manipulation and planting of ideas.

A Tory victory I still find less likely than a Labour majority. Whether or not the anti Labour surge is still around when an election is held is anyone's guess.

The media do seem to like Cameron, as let's face it, Blair once spoke of destroying the forces of conservatism. To really destroy conservatism finally from being a political force you have to actually have the final death knell hammered from its own side. The media love Cameron as he's doing this for them. Cameron loves the media as they are his best chance of office. Whether or not Cameron is motivated by destroying conservatism or simply getting into office by any means necessary is a tough one to call.

I'd say many of us on this blog want a non left wing government. We just don't agree with how it's done. PH has kind of implied, that if Cameron wins, any battle for the conservative side of the Tories is lost forever. Centre right will be seen as a dead duck by the Tories or any other party. He will not urge people to vote Labour but maybe he should. (I understand the hypocricy of you doing that Peter, I'm not looking for an argument).

If ever there was a battle for the future of this country the next election will be it. A Cameron victory will represent the end of conservatism for a generation or more. (You may not sit very comfortable with the Hitchens brand of social conservatism but the EU factor is critical).

The Tories in the last 4 general elections never tried being right wing. Dispite what the media said. How many of the non voters would embrace a sensible centre right strategy. With a coaltion of the big three supporting the EU lock, stock and barrel and the only two, albeit minor, players against the EU comprising of, neo nazi loonies (BNP) and a party that's transport policy would be a trainset in the loft soloution (UKIP), what hope do we have?

The Tories are in the wrong direction at the moment. Do not vote for them. How could anyone support a party backed by the BBC? Merry Christmas.

Peter's observations on the way poll results are displayed are interesting. However, although he notes the failure to take account of the "Don't knows", he misses the other 'group' of which I am a member (I can't be the only one?) which takes a fiendish delight in trying to skew any poll which is offered.
Political, consumer and particularly Local Government polls can be skewed by lying through your teeth. As an example, I've been Chinese, Afro-Carribean in recent poll forms and Indian in one personally conducted poll. I justify this stance by believing that it shouldn't make any difference if all races are to be treated equally, as individuals.
Never done this in a political poll yet as I've not yet been polled.

Actually Clive, by definition representive democracy doesn't exist when a large number of the people refuse to take part in it; ergo politicians can not be elected but are instead selected. Election is an open system of everyone choosing preferences that goes someway to giving the majority and approximate of what they want. We don't have that as a consequence of their being no real difference in the possible choices. Instead we have selection: A party in power only because there isn't an alternative among the selection.

Don't be fooled: the people that voted didn't choose the leadership of Britain. It was sealed by the pre-selected choice on offer.

Mr Boatang I did not refer to myself as Mr, I was merely explaining to someone with no manners how he should behave. And I still maintain he learnt what manners he hasn't got from your good self or was it vice versa? The rest of your post makes no sense to me as usual.
Mr Demetriou you stated that you were educated so I thought you would have known that Mr and Esq are mutually exclusive.
But, as it is the season of peace and good will, I will wish both of you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year. And that really is irony.

I didn't know John Demetriou went to Glasgow University, well done sir! So, I know he is being ironic in his dreadful faux pas in addressing anyone using both 'Mr' and 'Esquire'.

To summarise Andrew Platt's point: Is the electorate so stupid as to vote Labour if the BOE manipulates the economy with the astute application of some fiscal elastoplast in time for the next election?

You bet they are! The electorate have swallowed New Labour's lie that Gordon Brown was a wonderful Chancellor for a decade now. The man was a disaster, as the Northern Rock fiasco only partly revealed. Like all Chancellors, GB was happy to ride the international tide of benign economic currents throughout his tenure in No. 11, and take credit for growth for which he was not actually reponsible.

Fortuitously, GB managed to move next door just ahead of the posse and leave Darling to carry the can.

As for a Cameron winning the next general election, what has that got to do with a 'Tory victory'?

Cameron is an opportunistic political pygmy who has learned to play the games necessary to climb the greasy pole. If he makes it to the top, do not be deceived for one second that he will implement true conservative policies.

The Tory Party is David Cameron's vehicle to power, nothing more. Once installed (if at all) he will follow his own agenda - whatever that may be.

Somewhere, however, Peter Hitchen's original point seems to have become lost. Opinion Polls in this country manipulate numbers in order to manipulate opinions. Of course they do. From the politician's perspective that is what statistics are for.

Statistics, after all widely used in advertising and advertising is one of the largest employers of psychology graduates.

'Politics' is the name, 'sleight of hand' is the game'.

I see an analogy in an aspect of Scots Law, of which Mr Hitchens is well documented as deploring.

As I've said before, Scots Law is not just English Law with a few differences. Anglo-Saxon law, as it has developed in England has travelled the free world and some version or other of it pertains in most 'free Western democracies'.

Not so in England's northern neighbour.

Scots Law is internationally recogised by every school of jurisprudence as 'a unique legal system'.

Among the major differences is that in Scotland, the 'majority verdict' of a jury has always been acceptable. Even whe we still hanged people, a Scottish jury could send a man to the gallows on the 'simple majority' of eight to seven. Scottish juries comprise of fifteen members, and one proviso is that, if through illness, death or other attrition, a jury loses members, the trial may still proceed so long as at least twelve jurors remain, and if this happens, the majority required for conviction is still eight.

Think about that. You are o trial for your life and seven out of fifteen people consider you innocent or the case at least 'not proven'. You hang, nevertheless.

Not only that but while a Scottish jury may return its 'simple majority' verdict, there is no legal audit of the outcome. Was the accused convicted by eight or fourteen out of the fifteen jurors? We'll never know.

You can apply the analogy to opinion polls or elections as you please. The point is you don't need to influence everyone, to swing the swing. And you will find the air as fresh beneath your feet and the noose as tight around your neck irrespective of whether eight or fifteen found you guilty.

Statistics are just begging to be manipulated and he who pays the piper calls the tune. So, don't be fooled into supposing that all pollsters merely wish to reflect reality. As I have said before, if half your readers are male and half are female then the average number of testicles possessed by your readership will be one. And, while that may come as a bit of a disappointment to most of the chaps, it should undoubtedly come as a complete surprise to their wives.

The fact is most people are easily manipulated by polls precisely because most people do not understand statistics; and even what little they do understand they filter according to their own bias.

As Adam smith pointed out in principle, this is why so people smoke in the belief that the one-in-three chance of it significantly contributing to their death will not apply to them, while millions buy National Lottery tickets every week in the belief that the one-in-fourteen-million chance of a Jackpot win, could well be theirs.

As a Christian, I see such manipulation of data all the time, directed against believers like mine by people like Richard Dawkins.

Science, we are told, proves that evolution is true and there is no God. In fact, science merely delivers data and presents facts which people interpret in accordance with their pre-existing paradigms (bias).

Such was admitted by the South African politician and cosmologist, George Ellis in 'Scientific American' in 1995. He was refering to competing cosmological models which are often cited as 'scientific proof' against the universe having been created by a God, but the principle applies more widely to the present context, when he wrote:

'People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations...For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetical universe, with earth at its center (sic), and you cannot disprove it based on observations...you can only exlude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.'

Now substitute 'political' for 'philosophical' and 'statistics/opinion polls' for 'cosmology' and see how it reads and, above all, applies to Peter Hitchens's original point.

Mr "Demetriou" writes, in a return to his customary elaborate good manners, elegance of style and generosity of spirit (19th December 7.18 p.m.) :

" Hitchens,
You are going to look miiiighty stupid when the Tories go and win the next election.
Your detractors (including myself and Mr Boatang) will come onto your blog and metaphorically run your embarrassing behind out of town, most likely with your tail well and truly between your legs."

Now, as it happens, I'm well aware of the danger I run by holding fast to my view that the Tories cannot win another general election. It is always risky to make an unequivocal prediction. So why do it? Nobody made me. I could have backed out when the polls shifted, and found some way of making my peace with the Cameroons. Or I could have seen this coming ( it is no great surprise to me. The Michael Howard putsch against IDS, egged on by left-wing mediocrats, was a rehearsal for the Cameron takeover). I could have left myself room for escape when I first urged the destruction of the Tory Party. But I didn't, and I shan't. Because this isn't about how I feel or about whether I end up looking silly. It's about the future of Britain. The important thing is not whether my prediction is proved right or wrong, or if I look silly or vindicated, or if I win a bet, it is that the Tories *should* not win. If the idea that they *can* win can be spread, this highly unlikely event is made less unlikely.

The fear of being jeered at by people such as Mr "Boatang" and Mr "Demetriou" is thus a minor part of my worries. My real fear is that this disaster might actually happen, with all the consequences for the country that this will bring. It is a minor danger, but many in the media seek to make it more likely by their presentation of poll data, and I have to consider the possibility that these tactics might succeed. I cannot stress enough that a Cameron victory, were it to take place, would destroy forever the socially and morally conservative strands in the Tory Party, who would then be cast into outer darkness. "We tried it your way three times", the Tory establishment would lie "And it failed dismally. Then we chose the liberal route, and we got back into office." If the party split on those terms, the conservative elements would be a rump, powerless to attract the ambitious or disaffect the tribal vote.

We could all then settle down for several years of John Major reborn, with the difference that the media would by and large be as helpful to Mr Cameron in his early tears as they were to Anthony Blair in his. Scandals would die at birth, or be treated as if they had no implications. Fawning and fake glamour would surround the new Camelot. But this would all depend absolutely on Cameron continuing with his pro-EU, pro-PC, pro-crime, Greenish, high-spending, high-taxing pledges. Any move away from any of that, and the fangs of the BBC would be bared, and the media pack would begin looking to Labour again (Labour will by then have its own Cameron, the heir to the heir to Blair). Those who think they would be unable to bear a grinning Gordon Brown on the steps of Downing Street ( a silly emotional spasm which - as I've repeatedly pointed out - has nothing to do with politics) should ask themselves how much they will enjoy the spectacle of a Cameron government, espousing all the tenets of political correctness and greenery in an Etonian accent - suffocating rather than violent, but nasty even so.

I remember well, from the early years of the campaign to stop this country joining the Euro, that one of the arguments I had to fight hardest was the stupidest and most brainless of all "It's inevitable, so I might as well be in favour of it and it's not worth being against it". This sort of defeatism, supposedly based on facts, saps genuine argument. As we now know, it wasn't inevitable, provided people stuck to their principles. And the projection of a mythical Tory surge in opinion polls is designed to encourage precisely that type of demoralised defeatism among those who know (in their hearts) that Cameron is no use to them, but are still vulnerable to emotional calls to 'get Labour out'. A Tory government (still, I stress, highly unlikely on these figures) would not be a tolerable second best to a proper pro-British government. It would be an active danger to all the good causes there are. If you want another Major government, then vote for it. Be my guest. But don't be duped by manipulation into voting for such a thing, when you don't want it. My analysis of the polls is my small attempt to undo the assumptions they seek to spread. I am aware that, if the false idea that the Tories are bound to win gains ground, more people will be likely to vote for them. So of course I challenge it.

Who in their right mind today would want to ever register an opinion with these polls? We know government is controlled by elites and their commercial and media backers. The lefties have their institutions for the purposes of some social engineering and their guaranteed pensions and the globalists handle the financial side turning places like London into giant casinos. Both need each other; the former keeps the masses in order with petty social restrictions; the latter screws our bank accounts ensuring every transaction has an international bearing. Joe Public in dear old England will never get a look in, assuming he cares any more. Incidently, how does PH square his maverick views with the broad interests of the Daily Mail empire?

It would be good for us all, and the future of this country if the majority of the voters followed politics, but the sad part is they do not.And although you, and I, know the BOE sets interest rates,there is enough voters to get labour back in power, who will believe it is labours good handling of the economy that has kept interest rates low.I would love to see the back of labour,but who do you replace them with,certainly not Cameron and the liberal tories.I follow Peters line of thought,a right wing party is desperately needed."You know it makes sense".

I am most distraught to read that me and my opinions are of no significance to you. I shall go into Christmas '07 with a heavy head and a heavy heart. I don't think I'll ever recover.

Meanwhile, I've looked up irony. And lo and behold, the context matches! I must have got lucky, I won't hold up my glistening comprehensive fabian education as a reason for why my use of the term was correct all along. It is, indeed, ironic that you slam me for being rude and offensive, when throughout your post calling me rude and offensive, you were being...rude and offensive. That's irony. Got it yet? If not, ask Hitchens, he's usually a pretty good judge of most things.

So my regular 'conent' is the rantings of a gibbering idiot, eh? Ok.

Marvellous. Maybe for irony extraordinaire, you'll get a book this Christmas on the Dalai Lama and inner peace. You'll share your new found wisdom here and Hitchens will become a Hari Krishna.

It's disappointing that most people aren't picking up PHs rather good maths with the YouGov figures, showing that the three main parties are in the order of popularity given by YouGov but at lesser percentages, and that just over 30 per cent of those polled voted for none of these 3 parties or didn't vote.

My immediate reaction was that in addition, it is highly unlikely that the sample polled was representative of the whole of the electorate simply because vast numbers of people live in places which are more impenetrable than any jungle.

It is daft to imagine you can govern a country whilst pretending that such places do not exist, when possibly 25 per cent of the adult population is corralled into them if 1 in 4 children live below the poverty line. If you add to this unsurveyed pristine wilderness of 25 per cent (who are highly unlikely to vote at all), the 30 per cent discovered by PH lurking within the official survey figures, you have 55 per cent either not voting at all or voting for "other" parties.

One single party could get all of that 55 per cent plus some of the 45 per cent divided between the 3 main parties. These are my wild percentages of course, based on nothing more than a hunch, except for the 30 per cent properly calculated by PH from survey figures. But I am convinced no-one asks around in the "badlands of South East London" as Richard Littlejohn calls them, having just attended Bruce Springsteen's concert at the O2 and had to walk home. Or in the thousands of similar places up and down the UK.

But anyway, supposing about 55 per cent are available, plus X amount of the remaining 45 per cent, how could one single party scoop up all those uncommitted votes? I think it could only do so if, paradoxically, it wasn't actually trying to get anyone's vote but was simply sweeping in like the fire brigade or a lifeboat crew, its mind focused on rescue and on nothing much else. You would think that would be simple enough to organise. But, apparently not.

To Mark Smith – I bet if this web blog had been around in April 1992 you’d have been one of those saying that Labour could never win an election again.

The point about tactical voting in ’97 was that voters voted tactically because at that time they wanted the Tories out so badly. As soon as a critical mass of the electorate decides they want Labour out this impulse to vote tactically against the Tories will evaporate.

Just from a historical perspective, the past 10 years is no where near as bad as it has been in the past for the Tories. In the nineteenth century they went 33 years (1841-74) between winning elections but went on to dominate for the next century after that. They’ll be back again – I still believe the natural political leaning of Britain (or should I say England) is conservative.

Mikey, interesting that you lay the charge of bad manners here and then ask to be called Mr Williamson. Refering to yourself as Mr is the height of bad manners and really is poor form.
Your response to your perception of rudeness is to act like a child. I suggest you look up irony yourself, because you clearly don't get it. You shouldn't need to get over comments on a blog, but maybe you need to get over yourself.
On the subject of the piece, the word 'clinging' springs to mind.

Maybe as a little game to get into the Christmas spirit we ought to see if anyone can pick at least 64 seats that the Tories could possibly win of the 128 they'll need to get a majority of one. A quick search of previous election results will give you an idea of what they lost between their narrow scrape in 1992 to the wipe out in 1997/2001. Their gains in 2005 follow a very interesting pattern. They may very well get bigger majorities in seats they hold already, at the next election, but this won't give them the 128 seats they need to form what would only then be a very weak government.

Don't be too upset when you discover the results from 92 to 97 show the collapse of the third runner in many of the seats you pick. Seats held by the Tories being the biggest minority ended with tactical voting. It's all there in figures. Merry Christmas.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.